review, reflect, and react 5/issue 3 - winter, 2010/research/5.3.2.pdf · social studies research...

Social Studies Research and Practice http://www.socstrp.org

Volume 5 Number 3

1

Winter 2010

Review, Reflect, and React:

A Culturally Responsive Model for

Pre-service Secondary Social Studies Teachers

Paul G. Fitchett

Tehia V. Starker

Amy J. Good

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

The purpose of this qualitative study was to design and implement a model of cultural-responsiveness within a

social studies teacher education program. Specifically, we sought to understand how pre-service grades 6-12

social studies practitioners construct culturally responsive teaching (CRT) in their lesson planning. In addi-

tion, we examined the professional barriers that prevented teacher-candidates from actualizing culturally

responsive pedagogy. Incorporating a conceptual model of Review, Reflect, and React, 20 teacher candidates

in a social studies methods course engaged CRT theory and practice. Thematic analysis of lesson plans and

clinical reflections indicated successful proponents of CRT critically analyzed their curriculum, explored the

diverse needs of their students, and engaged learners in culturally appropriate social studies pedagogy.

Findings also showed that unsuccessful CRT was characterized by a lack of content knowledge, resistance

from the cooperating teacher, and a reliance on the textbook materials.

Key Words: 6-12 education, Culturally responsive teaching, Pre-service education, Social studies, Social

studies curriculum, Teacher characteristics

Introduction

n their position statement on the responsi-

bilities of teaching and learning, the

National Council for the Social Studies

(NCSS) encourages instruction that precipi-

tates dialogue between different groups of race

and ethnicity (NCSS, 2002). Yet, current social

studies curricula remains grounded in a male-

dominated, Eurocentric tradition that promotes

a myopic grand narrative (Cornbleth &

Waugh, 1995; Epstein, 2001). Non-majority

peoples are relegated to the margins of the cur-

riculum as footnote idiosyncrasies, or present-

ed superficially as tokenized heroes within the

context of the dominant society. Standardiza-

tion has led to a “narrowing of the curriculum”

(Crocco & Costigan, 2007, p. 529) that ham-

strings teachers‟ ability to utilize engaging and

dynamic pedagogy. The confluence of these

forces perpetuates a loss of identity for child-

ren of diversity in our social studies‟ class-

rooms. The purpose of this study was to design

and implement a model for cultural-respon-

siveness within a social studies teacher educa-

tion program. Specifically, we sought to under-

stand how pre-service grades 6-12 social

studies practitioners construct culturally res-

ponsive teaching (CRT) in their lesson plan-

ning. In addition, we examined the profession-

al barriers that prevented teacher-candidates

I


Volume 5 Number 3

2

Winter 2010

from actualizing culturally responsive pedago-

gy.

Conceptual Framework

A Curriculum of Castes

The social studies are an intuitive conduit

for multicultural education. The subject matter

and disciplines provide an ideal environment

for teaching issues of cultural diversity (Rong,

1998). Furthermore, NCSS has recommended

that social educators situate multiculturalism in

the curriculum (NCSS, 2002). Yet, if curricu-

lum is the “communication” of the discipline

(Trueba, 2004, p. 167) then current social

studies has failed to include non-majority

learners in the discussion. Across school sys-

tems, historical content and social science

perspectives remain dictated by a pro-Western

paradigm. This grand narrative gravitates to-

ward Eurocentrism and modernist epistemolo-

gy (Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995; Harvey, 1990).

The powerful, dominant group (White) main-

tains a cultural and intellectual dominion over

the other. This other is relegated into the role

of the oppressed in both the curriculum and the

classroom. The non-White learner views his or

her culture through a curriculum lens of exhi-

bitionism; perceiving his ethnicity as an idio-

syncratic contrast to the dominant cultural

mores (Willinsky, 1998).

Traditional social studies curriculum de-

velopers will argue that social studies texts and

standard courses of study include non-White,

non-majority examples. Yet, these examples

most often fit within the context of what James

Banks (1994) refers to as heroes and contribu-

tions. This smattering of significant historical

and social figures who made contributions

within the context of the dominant society is

supposed to provide examples of success and

perseverance (Sleeter & Grant, 1991). Con-

versely, politically correct agendas subscribe to

tokenized multiculturalism as well. In an

attempt to appear culturally relevant, liberal

social studies curriculums often depict non-

majority groups as victims (Danker, 2002).

Portrayed as powerless or socially deficient,

this sort of malefic compassion only exacer-

bates the devaluing of marginalized learners.

Neither of these categories of multicultural

education elicits critical discourse. Social sys-

tems and economic structures are not chal-

lenged. Worse yet, historical meanings are

constructed as absolute truths. Students ex-

posed to this shallow form of multiculturalism

are not expected to challenge the status quo,

nor are they prepared to evaluate their own

enfranchisement within our democratic system

to advocate for social justice (Bohn & Sleeter,

2000; Cornbleth & Waugh, 1995; Sleeter &

Grant, 1991).

Christine Sleeter and Jamy Stillman (2005)

argue that current social studies curriculum is

“presented as if there were no more serious

ideological debates” (p. 43), thereby perpetuat-

ing a cultural-reproduction of “caste-like”

social identities. Transformative multicultural-

ism (Banks, 1994; Jenks, Lee, & Kanpol,

2001) counteracts the hegemonic forces that

dominate the social studies canon by encourag-

ing critical, curricular analysis of historical

positionality, power structures, and stakehold-

ers.

Successful CRT partic-

ipants recognized cul-

tural disparities in the

curriculum, promoted

student-centered in-

struction, and reflected

on their practice.


Volume 5 Number 3

3

Winter 2010

In order to promote transformative multi-

culturalism, James Banks (1994) and Charles

Jenks, James Lee, and Barry Kanpol (2001)

encourage educators to look beyond the male-

dominated, Eurocentric exploits of history and

find spaces in which to incorporate a more in-

clusive perspective of social studies. In reflect-

ing on the curriculum they teach, social studies

educators should explore how goals and ob-

jecttives represent the students in their class-

rooms. Annad Marri (2005) suggests that edu-

cators address two questions when thinking

about the social studies curriculum, “1. Who is

and is not participating in democracy and on

whose terms? 2. How wide is the path to parti-

cipation?” (p. 1037).

Standardization and Pedagogical Stagnation

Along with these issues of socio-cultural

exclusion, current social studies curriculum is

often standardized and tied to high-stakes

testing. The inception of No Child Left Behind

(2002) has increased statewide testing proce-

dures across content areas, including social

studies. Previous research suggests that within

this era of increased standardization, teachers

feel limited in their pedagogical options

(Cimbricz, 2002; Crocco & Costigan, 2007;

Fitchett & Heafner, 2010). Andy Hargreaves

(1994, p. 117) refers to this process as “intensi-

fication,” whereby external forces (often

bureaucratic) diminish teacher autonomy.

Packaged curricula, pacing guides, and other

teacher-proof materials illustrate this pheno-

menon at its most current iteration. Teachers

acquiesce to lecture/teacher-centered instruc-

tional modes in the face of pressures to cover

tested content (Anderson, 2009). For non-

minority learners, this “banking” approach

(Freire, 2000, p. 74) fails to resonate. The

concern is also that pre-service teachers are not

trained on how to integrate their own know-

ledge/interests and students‟ backgrounds

within a packaged curriculum. Marginalized

learners fail to find their historical positionality

within the content, thereby losing interest in

the subject (Salinas, 2006; VanSledright,

2002).

Researchers have concluded that student-

centered, inquiry-based instruction provides

social studies learners‟ with more opportunity

to interact with the content and critically

analyze their place therein (Gay, 2002; Lad-

son-Billings, 1995a; Salinas, 2006; Ukpokudo,

2006). These transformative practices include

instructing students to be critical purveyors of

their own knowledge. In her study of teachers

of minority students, Gloria Ladson-Billings

(1995b) noted that good teaching challenges

students to think critically about social issues,

integrate various disciplines, and encourage

student interaction.

Within social studies, these strategies in-

clude, but are not limited to, cooperative learn-

ing, simulations, primary source analysis, mul-

tiple perspective taking, and historical ques-

tioning. Fostering dynamic instruction that

moves beyond the all-too-familiar recitation-

style of typical social studies pedagogy (Wine-

burg, 2001; Ravitch & Finn, 1987) motivates

non-majority learners to engage the content in

a meaningful way.

From Theory to Praxis: Providing a

Framework for Cultural Responsiveness

The challenge of confronting a standar-

dized social studies curriculum is daunting for

many novice practitioners. In his study of New

York pre-service teachers, David Gerwin

(2004) indicated that pre-service social studies

educators often felt beholden to teach in a

didactic/lecture style due to content coverage

concerns.

Teaching within this context, practitioners

are less likely to address socio-cultural identi-

ties of their students (Crocco, 1998; Salinas,

2006).Yet, as Anita Bohn and Christine Sleeter

(2000, p. 157) indicated, “standards per se are

not necessarily antithetical to multicultural

education” in that they offer explicitness to the


Volume 5 Number 3

4

Winter 2010

curriculum. Disclosure of social studies intent

and values affords practitioners a framework in

which to pedagogically maneuver.

Accordingly, while an educator might be

charged to teach the “formal curriculum;” their

experience in the classroom is the “enacted

curriculum” — the beliefs, values, and prefe-

rences that influence day to day instruction

(Ross, 2006). Social studies methods courses

can have significant influence on how pre-

service teachers develop their understanding of

the enacted curriculum (Thornton, 2001). We

referred to Stephen Thornton‟s (2001, 2005)

concept of “gatekeeping” as a fundamental dis-

position for developing our framework; where-

by the practitioner is the agent of curricular

decision-making. Thus, we ascribed to the

belief that standards should not predetermine

teacher-centered, didactic instruction.

In order to challenge traditional teaching of

standardized curriculum, we argue for a more

transformative pedagogy. Culturally respon-

sive teaching (CRT) strategies provide pre-

service social studies practitioners with the

instructional skills needed to work effectively

within a diverse environment. Margaret Crocco

(1998) adds:

For some beginning social studies

teachers, the challenge to their ideal-

ism represented by many aspects of

(standardization) can ultimately be de-

feating. Our task as teacher educators

is to gird new teachers for the struggle,

help them find space to practice cultu-

rally responsive pedagogy, and work

to reform a system harnessed to educa-

tional standardization at the expense of

educational quality (p. 129).

Culturally responsive teaching is the pro-

cess of “using the cultural knowledge, prior

experiences, frames of references, and perfor-

mance styles of students from diverse back-

grounds to make learning environments more

relevant to and effective for them. It is cultu-

rally validating and affirming” (Gay, 2000, p.

2). Components of culturally responsive teach-

ing according to Geneva Gay (2002) are (1)

developing a cultural diversity knowledge

base, (2) developing culturally relevant curri-

cula, (3) demonstrating cultural caring and

building a learning community, (4) exhibiting

effective cross-cultural communications, and

(5) delivering cultural congruity in classroom

instruction. From Gay‟s (2000, 2002) theoreti-

cal framework, we devised and implemented a

culturally responsive model for lesson plan

development (see Figure 1). It is imperative

that pre-service teachers realize that there are

“rules of engagement” for being a culturally

responsive teacher; it is not a haphazard, non-

chalant attempt to connect to culturally diverse

students. Within the Review, Reflect, and React

process, each of Gay‟s (2002) CRT compo-

nents were emphasized.

Conversely, this study exposed substantial systemic and dispositional

obstacles toward developing a cultural responsive model in a second-

ary environment. We argue that cultural responsiveness should be a

priority for all secondary teacher education programs. Accordingly,

our model encourages practitioners to critique, engage, and reflect to

develop social studies practice that celebrates our pluralistic society.


Volume 5 Number 3

5

Winter 2010

Figure 1: A Framework for Implementing Culturally Responsive Teaching

In the first component, Review, pre-service

teachers were instructed to critically examine

the standard course of study for their social

studies discipline. Operating upon Sleeter and

Stillman‟s (2005) curricular analysis strategy,

practitioners reviewed the curriculum from a

culturally conscientious perspective. A ques-

tioning activity was employed incorporating

Marri‟s (2005) introspective structure. Keeping

with Gay‟s CRT framework (2002), pre-

service professionals were encouraged to dev-

elop a culturally diverse knowledge base by

finding “spaces” in the curriculum (Crocco,

1998, p.129), specifically, places where the

non-majority learners were underrepresented

and culturally relevant instruction was appro-

priate. In addition, they critiqued the positio-

nality of minority peoples within the current

canon: How did they interact with the majori-

ty? Why do you think the curriculum has situa-

ted these peoples/cultures in this manner?

From this activity, we sought to instill social


Volume 5 Number 3

6

Winter 2010

studies teacher candidates with the metacogni-

tive strategies to critically navigate their cur-

riculum, so that they can remain vested in a

standard course of study (often tied to their job

performance), while simultaneously acknowl-

edging the cultural discrepancies that need to

be addressed within their own instruction.

The second component, Reflect, was opera-

tionalized into two parts. First, teacher candi-

dates passed out a questionnaire to their stud-

ents. This student demographic survey asked

learners questions regarding their race/ethni-

city, gender, perceptions of social studies,

birth-place, and mother‟s highest level of edu-

cation (a comparable indicator of socioeco-

nomic status). These confidential responses

provided teacher candidates with a context of

the classroom culture. Second, candidates con-

ducted formal observations of their cooperat-

ing teacher. Pre-service professionals took note

of instructional style, classroom management,

teacher/student dialogue, and overall demeanor

toward their students. From these combined

field notes, pre-service teachers developed

“cross-cultural communications” (Gay, 2002,

p. 110); whereby they reflected on the learning

environment and interaction between the

teacher and students. Referring to the theoreti-

cal foundations of multiculturalism explored

through various readings and dialogue (i.e.

Banks, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995b; Ukpo-

kodu, 2006), candidates were encouraged to

integrate a critical analysis of how the curricu-

lum was realized through instruction. From

this work, pre-service educators‟ were to extra-

polate the funds of knowledge (Ladson-

Billings, 1995b; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonza-

lez, 1992) that students bring to the classroom.

Candidates wrote reflections on the context of

their classroom environment; specifically, who

were the students and how did the cooperating

teacher interact with them. As Gay (2000,

2002) points out, developing a culturally diver-

sity knowledge base is essential to become

responsive practitioners.

Tamara Villegas and Ana Maria Lucas

(2007) note, “… learners use their prior

knowledge and beliefs to make sense of the

new ideas and experiences they encounter in

school” (p. 29). Similarly, in this third compo-

nent, React, practitioners utilize cultural-

responsiveness in developing their own lesson

plans, thereby demonstrating “cultural caring”

via instructional decision-making (Gay, 2002).

Specifically, how pre-service teachers instruc-

tionally react to the context of the schooling

environment. Ladson-Billings (1995b) points

out that culturally responsive pedagogy

“appears to refer to a more dynamic or syner-

gistic relationship between home/community

culture and school culture” (p. 467). Moving

beyond the innocuous level of superficial

multiculturalism (Banks, 1994; Cornbleth &

Waugh, 1995; Bohn & Sleeter, 2000), candi-

dates developed and taught lessons that drew

upon the community as a content-rich re-

source, incorporating “culturally-relevant cur-

ricula” (Gay, 2002, p. 108). Candidates were

encouraged to integrate student-centered,

inquiry-based teaching strategies that were cul-

turally congruent to the learning styles of the

diverse classroom community (Gay, 2002).

Because this process was meant to be genera-

tive, candidates wrote self-reflections on their

teaching practices. Geneva Gay and Kipchoge

Kirkland (2003) and Tyrone Howard (2003)

suggested that self-reflection is an essential

practice for pre-service teachers. Self-analysis

of instructional endeavors helped pre-service

social studies teachers prepare lessons that

better motivated and situated learning within

the sociocultural perspectives of their students.

A majority of previous studies have ex-

plored the practice of culturally responsive

teaching in elementary social studies class-

rooms (Ladson-Billings 1995a, 1995b; Ukpo-

kudo, 2006). Yet, few studies have explored

the implementation of culturally responsive

teaching theory into practice models for pre-

service middle/secondary (grades 6-12) social

studies candidates. We argue that the prevail-


Volume 5 Number 3

7

Winter 2010

ing trend of a pro-Western, standardized cur-

riculum serves as a pedagogical barrier to

providing culturally responsive instruction in

grades 6-12 social studies classrooms (Crocco,

1998; Crocco & Costigan, 2007). The in-

creased presence of high-stakes testing in

social studies at these particular grade levels

seemingly inhibits dynamic pedagogy among

novice practitioners (Gerwin, 2004). We

designed and implemented a culturally respon-

sive teaching program that underscored the

three specific themes of Review, Reflect, and

React. From this study, we sought to under-

stand how a theory-to-practice model might

influence pre-service grades 6-12 social studies

practitioners to pedagogically actualize cultu-

rally responsive teaching theory. We wanted to

know what sort of “restrictive forces” might

prevent teacher candidates from teaching in a

culturally responsive mode.

Methodology

Participants

For this study, we employed a biased sam-

ple of convenience: a class of 20 students in a

middle/secondary (6-12) social studies me-

thods course (taught by one of the principal

investigators) at a large, urban university in the

southeast. The participants were part of a

graduate licensure program that provides social

studies teaching credentials to post-bacca-

laureates. All of the students in this class had

Bachelor‟s degrees in social studies-related

fields (i.e. history, political science, etc.).

Demographically, the class cohort consisted of

ten white females, two black females, and

eight white males. The approximate age range

of the participants was 23 to 60 years of age.

Implementing a Culturally-Responsive Teach-

ing Component

From the onset of our program implemen-

tation, we assumed the participants had limited

exposure to culturally responsive practices.

These suppositions were confirmed through

informal conversations with participants.

Several students noted that they associated

multicultural theory with surface-level content

supplements, akin to the Banks (1994) heroes

and contributions metaphor. Therefore, before

participants could successfully review their

standard course of study from a critical lens,

they were exposed to various sources/readings

of culturally relevant pedagogical theory and

practice (Banks, 1994; Cornbleth & Waugh,

1995; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995b;

Moll, 1992; Willinsky, 1998).

After being introduced to culturally res-

ponsive theory through readings, dialogue, and

discussion, we instructed student/participants

to review the state standard course of study for

their specified discipline. Marri‟s (2005) ques-

tioning framework guided this practice (see

Figure 1). Participants were challenged to cri-

tically examine the narrative of their assigned

curriculum. They explored the historic positio-

nality of the text and used the questioning

strategies to determine whose voice is empo-

wered by the curriculum and whose voice is

suppressed. After an initial analysis, students

worked in small focus groups of similar con-

tent areas and discussed their findings.

Through this dialogue, students shared their

own personal praises and indictments of social

studies curricula. Students were encouraged to

quote or refer to, critical multiculturalism

when speaking, so that the abstract theoretical

lexicon could become more ingrained in their

own pedagogical vernacular. Disagreements

ensued, voices raised, and discussions were not

always conciliatory. Yet, through the uncom-

fortable and often sensitive conversations,

student/participants realized that a social

studies curriculum is not culturally universal,

nor is it without its own shortfalls.

In the next step of the program implemen-

tation, students/participants asked learners in

their student teaching clinical classroom to

complete an anonymous questionnaire. This


Volume 5 Number 3

8

Winter 2010

instrument asked students to describe their

cultural background, views/perspectives on the

importance of social studies, and mother‟s

highest education level (see Appendix A).

From this data, student/participants gained a

more substantive context for the learners‟

sociocultural backgrounds. In addition, stu-

dent/participants spent approximately 25 hours

in classroom observation of their cooperating

teacher. They were held to specific observation

criteria including pedagogical style, classroom

management, student communication, and per-

ceived cultural-responsiveness (see Appendix

B). Student/participants expressed their find-

ings in short observational reflections. Incorpo-

rating knowledge of the standard course of

study, CRT principles, and their own field

notes, student/participants journaled on com-

mon teaching practices, learner behavior, and

classroom interactions. This writing activity

challenged prospective social studies teachers

to apply theoretical concepts of transformative,

responsive multiculturalism to the atheoretical

realities of the classroom experience. Thus,

buoyed by their critical review of the curricu-

lum, student/participants were able to more

comprehensively reflect on instructional prac-

tice.

As a final step to the program implementa-

tion, social studies teacher-candidates designed

and taught two lessons in their clinical (student

teaching) experience. Supported by the instruc-

tor/researcher and their cooperating teacher,

these lessons aligned with the state standard

course of study for their given discipline.

Before designing the lessons, student/partici-

pants were provided with additional scaffold-

ing through a reading and discussion of

Geneva Gay‟s (2002) principles of CRT. Then,

pre-service practitioners reacted to the curricu-

lum and learner context by developing instruc-

tional lessons. Student/participants also were

asked to reflect on their implementation

(teaching) of the lesson. Not hampered by

restrictions or qualifications, student/partici-

pants were given the instructional freedom to

devise culturally responsive lessons as they

envisioned. After the first lesson, we provided

the students with feedback on their instruction-

al choices, cultural responsiveness, and per-

sonal reflection of the teaching experience.

With this insight, students developed and

taught a second lesson. This final component

was viewed as a culminating step and served to

demonstrate the generative process of teaching

(i.e. revision and metacognition). Also, stu-

dent/practitioners were challenged to reflect on

how lessons were received by learners, while

noting how they would improve and revise the

lesson for future classes. As Gay and Kirkland

(2003) suggest, we hoped that metacognitive

reflection would facilitate critical introspection

of culturally responsive practice within the

context of the classroom environment. Put

another way, we wanted our social studies pre-

service teachers to realize that no two classes

are the same. They were encouraged to adjust

and revise lessons to meet the needs of multi-

faceted learning communities.

This study instituted a

gate-keeping model for

bridging the gap be-

tween the theory and

practice of culturally

responsive teaching for

social studies teacher

candidates working

within urban, second-

ary schools.


Volume 5 Number 3

9

Winter 2010

In experiencing the “Review, Reflect, and

React” framework, the participants adopted the

role of social science researchers: examining

the curriculum, gathering data on student

demographics, and observing their cooperating

teachers. Previous studies have concluded that

pre-service teacher-led research is a valid form

of educational study (Liston & Zeichner,

1990). Specifically, it can increase dialogue

between student teacher and teacher educator,

encourage critical reflection on instructional

practice, and help teacher candidates familiar-

ize with complexities of the profession (Beck-

man, 1957; Liston & Zeichner, 1990; Wood,

1988). Though not the focus of our study, we

acknowledged these welcomed ancillary

effects to our overall instructional/research

goal.

Procedure

We utilized a qualitative methodology to

investigate how our theory-to-practice cultural-

ly responsive model might influence pre-

service secondary social studies educators‟

pedagogical decision-making. Thematic ana-

lysis was employed to examine our research

question. Data for this study were gathered

from student/participants‟ reflections of class-

room community, written lesson plans, and

informal conversations. We incorporated

investigator triangulation in order to ensure

greater reliability of coding (Denzin, 2009). In

keeping with Virginia Braun and Victoria

Clarke‟s (2006) six phases of thematic analy-

sis, we first familiarized ourselves with the

data by individually reading and re-reading

lessons and reflections. Initial codes were

recognized. Then, we discussed initial findings

and collated relevant codes. During a third

reading of students‟ work, tentative themes

emerged from the coding patterns. Themes

were reviewed within the context of the entire

dataset. Next, revised themes were defined and

labeled. As a final step, we extracted salient

examples of the emerging themes of analysis.

In the subsequent section, we identified these

themes of how pre-service social studies

teachers made pedagogical sense of our cul-

tural-responsive teaching model along with

obstacles to their progress.

Results

Cultural Responsive Enactment of

the Formal Curriculum

Geneva Gay (2002) contended that practi-

tioners who advocate for a CRT model should

develop a cultural diversity knowledge base.

As a first step to operationalizing a CRT

model, we encouraged teacher candidates to

critically review their curriculum standards by

asking specific questions about who is repre-

sented in the canon and in what context. In

reviewing the observation reflections, we

noticed that successful proponents of CRT

tended to critically assess the pedagogy and

curriculum at work within their cooperating

teacher‟s classroom. Often these candidates/

participants noted that teacher-centered, didac-

tic instruction failed to motivate learners. They

suggested that coverage-obsessed teaching

practices offered a myopic view of social

education that was irrespective of cultural

inclusion. Mitch, an ex-Marine turned future

educator, noted that in the Advanced Place-

ment (AP) class he observed, “There is no

diversity at all in the instructional technique.

The teacher does not address the learning

styles and motivations of the various students.”

Other candidates seemingly conceded that the

current public school system stifles culturally

responsive practices (Crocco, 1998). One such

pre-service educator, Luke, wrote, “I am sorry

to say that in my many hours of observation …

that in the „real world‟ of the public school

system, this particularly important aspect of

pedagogy (CRT) … often falls to the wayside.”

Pre-service teachers reported a discrepancy

between what was being emphasized in their

social studies methods course and what they


Volume 5 Number 3

10

Winter 2010

were observing in the clinical environment

(Tellez, 2008).

These critical condemnations of curriculum

and practice were not only exhibited in obser-

vation writing. Culturally responsive candi-

dates carried this epistemology into their own

pedagogical design. While lesson planning,

Sara, a middle grades social studies candidate,

challenged her students to critique the textbook

as “propaganda,” while introducing the topic

of the 1960s Civil Rights movement. She noted

that the benign story unfolding within the

textbook failed to capture the social violence

and political upheaval of that era. Sublimating

her own critical observations into practice,

Sara sought to engage her students in a critical

discourse so that they could become active

“reviewers” of the curriculum imposed upon

them.

Developing a Context for Understanding

Another principle of Geneva Gay‟s (2002)

concept of CRT encourages educators to

demonstrate cultural caring while building a

learning community. Specifically, she sug-

gested that practitioners employ “cultural scaf-

folding”; wherein the culture and experiences

of the learners are utilized to expand their

intellectual horizons and academic achieve-

ment (Gay, 2002, p. 109). We noted that the

participants/teacher candidates were not fami-

liar with the funds of knowledge or the urban

environment in which many of their students

lived. We established a Reflect component to

our CRT program in which pre-service social

studies educators would consider their own

teaching philosophy/goals within the learning

environment and socioeconomic environs of

the learners. These considerations manifested

in the lesson planning of CRT-savvy teacher

candidates. Carol, a former Teach for America

practitioner and current administrator of a

KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) school,

used community examples and current events

in order to describe abstract nuances of geo-

graphy such as place and location. Drawing

from the local urban environment, Carol

incorporated photos of familiar buildings and

parks to describe place, whereby she used a

political map to show the location of the city in

which she taught. Carol encouraged students to

answer questions on how their urban place

perspective differed from the map pinpoint

location. Then, she challenged students to

think critically about how “place” changes as

buildings are torn down and rebuilt, parks

renovated, and new schools built in the stu-

dents‟ neighborhood. Utilizing an epistemolo-

gy similar to Todd Kenreich‟s (2010) theory of

changing spatial patterns and geographic

identity, Carol successfully connected stu-

dents‟ lived-experiences with the obscure

standard course of study.

Likewise, Samantha, student teaching in a

high minority, urban high school sociology

class, provided examples of urban develop-

ment to her students, challenging students to

determine which model best fit the current

ghettoization of their community. Whereas,

Wendy, working with a class of urban, middle

grade learners developed a simulation of the

early 20th century factory system, highlighting

the similarities and differences between im-

migrant and women‟s rights then and now. She

wrote in her reflection, “I was pleasantly sur-

prised that some of the male students really

took the perspective of being a female serious-

ly into consideration and reflected that in their

explanation of why they would/would not join

the strike.” Perspective-taking activities as

designed by Wendy and others demonstrated a

willingness to provide a meaningful context to

instruction so that students‟ historical positio-

nality (VanSledright, 2002) no longer seemed

so distal.

The Practice of

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Working within students‟ funds of know-

ledge, did not always manifest as a content


Volume 5 Number 3

11

Winter 2010

supplementation; such findings would have

suggested students were pursuing a simplistic

notion of multiculturalism a la heroes and

contributions (Banks, 1994). Encouraging par-

ticipant/candidates to React to their students‟

learning environments, we observed an emerg-

ing theme of cultural-pedagogical considera-

tion akin to Gay‟s (2002) notion of “cultural

congruity in the classroom” (p. 112). Luke,

developing a high school lesson on the U.S.

Civil Rights movement, noted that a number of

his students were interested in automobile

mechanics. He sought to motivate learners

through instruction that would stimulate their

physical/mechanical interests. Luke‟s students

designed a learning cube to help them better

understanding concepts of the era. He wrote,

“… so I thought that having them create a

„product‟ that demonstrated learning would be

a great way to keep these particular students

focused, while having them engage in the

material.”

While participants noted feeling hamstrung

by the prescriptive requirements of the stan-

dard course of study, successful teachers of

CRT demonstrated methodology that sought to

counteract the prevailing, Eurocentric canon of

social studies instruction. Incorporating

“symbolic curriculum” devices (Gay, 2002, p.

108), pre-service practitioners used symbols,

icons, and mottos to teach specific morals,

knowledge, and skills. Benjamin, a middle-

aged factory worker-turned educator, em-

ployed various iconic images to stimulate dis-

cussion among his urban, middle-grade stu-

dents over what he described as “cultural

universals” (i.e. religion, government, etc.).

Benjamin wrote that his objective for this

lesson was for students “to learn that in a

democratic and multicultural society there is a

need to evaluate multiple perspectives that

derive from the different cultural vantage

points.” Along similar pedagogical lines, Bob,

a middle grades teacher seeking certification,

integrated literature from around the world into

his lesson on geography and culture. In his

lesson plan, he indicated that folk tales of

countries in Africa and Western Europe ex-

pound similar values; suggesting that while

people have different social structures, histo-

ries, and belief systems there exist similarities

along lines of human morality and dignity. Bob

noted that within his diverse classroom popula-

tion these findings would help students over-

come perceived cultural stereotypes.

As we read and critiqued participants‟ les-

son plans for CRT strategies, we discovered

that successful culturally relevant instruction

utilized multiple resources beyond the text-

book, similar to Gay‟s (2002) principle of

societal curriculum. Candidates who wished to

provide accurate societal perspective used

current events and more often, primary source

material. Sandra, an African American woman

who also as working on a Master‟s degree in

History along with licensure, remarked that her

goal for teaching was to “move above” the

standard course of study. She utilized primary

source materials in her teaching of African

American slavery, Reconstruction, and Civil

Rights, while providing a contrasting view

from the textbook. Sandra taught in a predomi-

nately White, suburban classroom. Finding it

difficult to culturally and historically “relate”

to her students, Sandra used primary sources as

an attempt to challenge students into under-

standing different perspectives. By engaging

students in letter writing and other forms of

historical empathy (Davis, Yeager, & Foster,

2001; Foster & Yeager, 1998), she was able to

introduce an uninformed, dominate cultural

group to the complex socio-cultural role of

African Americans within current and past US

history. Similarly, Beth, teaching in an urban

middle grades classroom, incorporated various

written sources and images to depict Colum-

bus‟s “discovery” of the Arawak peoples. By

providing students with the various facades of

history, Beth helped her students understand

how hegemonic forces shape historical inter-

pretation. She wrote:


Volume 5 Number 3

12

Winter 2010

“The goal of this lesson is to provide

students with an understanding of the

impact colonization has on the native

people and how one person‟s victory is

another person‟s defeat. Students will

be able to critically examine the posi-

tive and negative aspects of Spanish

conquest.”

Understanding the social construction of

history via primary source materials provides

learners with a discerning insight into values

and biases inherent to our society. Cinthia

Salinas (2006) noted that primary source

material motivates diverse learners most often

when it reflects, directly or indirectly, their

own experience. We uncovered this trend

among successful CRT participants. Sara,

using various primary source materials in a

lesson on Women‟s Suffrage, discovered that

her female students, often less active in con-

versation, took the lead in a discussion on

women‟s roles in the 20th and 21st centuries.

By incorporating culturally relevant source

material, pre-service social studies educators

were able to successfully motivate diverse

student populations.

Within the scope of lesson planning, partic-

ipants who incorporated CRT into their lesson

design were more likely to use student-

centered and inquiry-based pedagogy. Previous

studies of CRT and theory have endorsed

innovative, non-didactic instructional practices

(Gay, 2002; Ladson Billings 1995a, 1995b;

Ukpokudo, 2006). In examining lesson plans

and participant/candidates subsequent teacher

reflections, we found a substantial amount of

complexity, authenticity, and creativity among

participants. Notably, participants Luke and

Sara incorporated historical drama and struc-

tured seminar. Whereas simulations afforded

young learners the opportunity to enact famili-

ar and contrasting social roles, seminars en-

couraged discourse on potentially controversial

issues of race, class, and power. In exploring

segregationist practices of the southern United

States, Sara presented primary source material

of local Jim Crow laws. Then, students read

documents pertaining to current de facto seg-

regationist forces such as zoning laws. After

analyzing the juxtaposing documents, students

took part in structured class discussions, which

challenged learners to compare current exam-

ples of racism to historic events. Analogous to

the findings of Diana Hess (2004), Sara noted

that seminars challenged students‟ beliefs, and

encouraged learners to take ownership over

their thinking.

Other participants held informal discus-

sions and constructed cooperative learning

modules. Participants valued the cross-cultural

possibilities inherent to this form of instruc-

tion. Benjamin, one such advocate, noted in a

lesson designed to use cooperative learning,

I want whites to mix with other races

and students to get with peers outside

their normal peer group … When stu-

dents graduate to the work force, they

will experience a multicultural life.

This experience will open their eyes to

realizing that success will occur when

they understand others.

Culturally responsive participants utilized

student-centered pedagogy to encourage criti-

cal discussions and provide opportunity for

interaction within diverse classroom environ-

ments.

(Re)-evaluating Culturally

Responsive Teaching

As participants reacted to the context of

their teaching experience and the curriculum

pressed upon them, we envisioned a generative

model. As such, we encouraged participants to

critically reflect on their lesson planning. By

developing these metacognitive skills, pre-

service social studies practitioners will be able

to adjust and re-imagine their pedagogy to suit

the multifaceted backgrounds of their students


Volume 5 Number 3

13

Winter 2010

(Gay & Kirkland, 2003). The Review, Reflect,

and React model we have proposed is not

terminal, but a foundational and continually

changing process. Often, we found that partici-

pants sought to improve their pedagogy to

better motivate learners. Reflection often leads

to better and more informed decisions for

teacher and student alike (Gay & Kirkland,

2003). Luke, while teaching a cooperative

learning activity, noted that student engage-

ment was lopsided with one or two students

per group doing most of work. He addressed

these issues in his reflection commenting,

“Group dynamics are something I need to

consider carefully in my own classroom before

implementing cooperative learning strategies.”

Yet, in other circumstances, it was necessary to

become more knowledgeable of students‟ lives

and community, while citing one‟s own

ignorance. Carol, a white female teaching at a

predominately African American KIPP school

remarked while reflecting on a class discus-

sion,

This sparked a somewhat heated com-

ment from one student who said that

he was partially White because a slave

owner raped his great grandmother. It

definitely made me realize that there

were race issues discussed in other

contexts at home and how larger dis-

cussions about race and diversity

would (mean) more prepping to speak

to tolerance.

In developing a metacognitive component to

their teaching practice, CRT candidates were

able to confront epistemological challenges to

pedagogy and devise strategies for meeting the

needs of young learners.

Obstacles Toward Culturally

Responsive Teaching

In our informal conversations, analysis of

pre-service teachers‟ work, and reading of their

reflections, we recognized that a number of

candidates seemingly rejected the principles of

CRT in their lesson planning. One consistent

theme that emerged was resistance from the

cooperating teachers (CT) to allow participants

to explore and present culturally responsive

pedagogy (Tellez, 2008). Sandra commented

that her CT was frustrated that cultural inclu-

sive pedagogy would take away from the

standard course of study, remarking that it was

“impractical.” While Sandra chose to switch

cooperating teachers, other participants re-

mained with skeptical CTs either due to

necessity or professional choice.

Pre-service teachers, collaborating with

resistant practitioners, tended to reject CRT

practices in their lesson design, thus confirm-

ing that CTs are a major influence on pre-

service teacher‟s performance and instructional

ideology (Anderson, 2007; Tellez, 2008).

Rick‟s CT indicated that his classes act “whol-

ly American,” and he did not have the “time to

be culturally-conscientious.” Perhaps not coin-

cidentally, Rick designed lessons that failed to

move beyond the scope of the traditional social

studies practice. Conversely, cooperating and

pre-service teachers may believe that they are

culturally responsive on a surface level, but

teaching practices do not always confirm it on

a deeper or active level, which is another form

of resistance (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Tabitha,

a second career female with excellent content

knowledge, noted in her reflections how much

she endorsed culturally responsive teaching

practices. Yet, her lesson preparation revealed

something quite different. She consistently

utilized lecture as the sole instructional strate-

gy, while commenting in her lesson plan

reflections that the non-White students “just

didn‟t get it.” Though instructors provided the

social studies cohort with several alternatives

to lecture, Tabitha remained inflexible to ins-

tructional change, thereby demonstrating a

resistance to adapting to the learning styles of

her diverse learners.


Volume 5 Number 3

14

Winter 2010

In addition to CT and pedagogical resis-

tance, a number of participants suggested that

the prepackaged materials (i.e. lesson plans,

pacing guides, and even primary source docu-

ments) limited their pedagogical independence

(Hargreaves, 1994). Candidates were discou-

raged from including authentic materials to

supplement their lessons, or they supported the

idea that the curriculum in place was a univer-

sal or correct curriculum (Gay & Kirkland,

2003). Rick, one of the least successful propo-

nents of CRT, consistently included work-

sheets, quizzes, and lesson ideas recycled from

the school system‟s homogenized course

packs. As we investigated this phenomenon,

we found a parallel between dependence on

packaged materials and relevant content area

knowledge. We noted that successful propo-

nents of CRT such as Luke, Sandra, and Sara

wrote highly detailed, competent lessons; often

discreetly subverting the system by including

materials not supplied by the school system.

Conversely, participants less comfortable with

their content area were less likely to address

cultural-responsiveness. Jean, teaching in a

class of 95% self identified students of color,

found it difficult to connect Western African

empires such as Timbuktu with her predomi-

nately Black class. In informal conversations,

she remarked that World History was not her

strongest subject area and that she felt the need

to rely on the textbook.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop

and implement a culturally responsive frame-

work for pre-service middle/secondary social

studies teachers. We sought to determine,

within the scope of our framework, how

teacher candidates authentically operationa-

lized CRT within their own lesson planning.

Also, we investigated possible obstacles to our

program design so that we could adjust the

framework for future pre-service candidates.

Our research suggests that a Review, Reflect,

and React (3 R‟s) framework can successfully

introduce principles of culturally responsive

teaching to pre-service social studies teachers.

Social studies candidates have to be provided

with the opportunity to critique their curricu-

lum and reflect within the context of their

classroom community. To pedagogically en-

gage students, novice practitioners need to be

able to incorporate primary source documents,

perspective taking, historical empathy, and

student-centered instruction within the context

of the learners‟ community. In addition, our

findings indicate that a 3 R‟s framework is

generative, whereby candidates constantly

challenge themselves to become more cultural-

ly aware.

The innovative lesson planning exempli-

fied by participants in this study offers hope in

a system mired by high stakes testing and

ideologues competing for control of the cur-

riculum. We believe this model serves as a

gatekeeping archetype for offsetting the

perceived lack of autonomy so often associated

with middle/secondary social studies teachers

(Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Gerwin, 2004).

Successful CRT practitioners from our study

taught their standard course of study while

simultaneously subverting the traditionalist

canon by providing critique, context, and pers-

pective. They viewed their practice (and that of

their CT) from a critical lens incorporating

content and strategies that met the needs of

their diverse, urban environment.

Through critical analysis, observation,

planning, and self-reflection, this study dem-

onstrated that culturally responsive teaching

can be accomplished in a secondary social

studies classroom. Culturally-responsive pre-

service practitioners employed culturally con-

gruent methods that engaged learners within

the context of their sociocultural environment.

Facilitating structured seminars, incorporating

historical perspective taking, and using in-

quiry-based strategies broke from traditional,

perfunctory social studies instruction (Ravitch

& Finn, 1987). From authentic educational


Volume 5 Number 3

15

Winter 2010

strategizing, successful CRT participants

demonstrated that innovation of pedagogy can

coexist within a prescriptive, standardized

environment. In reflecting on practice, pre-

service social studies practitioners perceived

CRT as an organic endeavor that required

constant modification; thereby shaping instruc-

tion to meet the changing need of learners

(Gay & Kirkland, 2003).

In analyzing the impediments to the CRT

framework, our study elucidates the discrepan-

cy between the pedagogical goals of a teacher

education program and the realities of the

professional world. John Dewey (1916) refer-

red to this divergence of purpose between

academia and society as the “separation of

town and gown” (p. 416). Thus, the various

institutions of education, within and outside of

higher academia, often operate unilaterally,

leading to conflicting ideals regarding the

nature and purpose of teaching.

We noted that cooperating teacher resis-

tance contributed to a lack of CRT lesson plan-

ning among pre-service candidates. Deferring

to the CT‟s instructional style is not an uncom-

mon practice among pre-service practitioners

(Tellez, 2008). The pressure of evaluation from

the CT encourages many teacher candidates to

replicate mentor behavior and methods of

teaching (regardless of personal preference),

rather than experiment with their own ideas or

methods in the classroom (Anderson, 2007).

Moreover, cooperating teacher resistance to

CRT was indicative of the ideological rift be-

tween the aims of teacher education programs

and classroom practice. Challenging teachers

to reevaluate their disposition toward instruc-

tion from a culturally responsive framework is

particularly difficult.

Villegas and Lucas (2007) noted that suc-

cessful culturally responsive pre-service edu-

cation utilizes all stakeholders of teacher edu-

cation. In order to strengthen the ties be-tween

teacher education and local urban schools, we

suggest that the community of teachers and

schools become more engaged in the CRT pro-

cess. Likewise, teacher educators should dia-

logue with practitioners to determine where the

“town and gown” converge and diverge in

their instructional aims. Professional develop-

ment schools serve as a model to join schools

and teacher education institutions under shared

goals. These programs foster collegiality, pro-

fessional collaboration, and an openness to-

ward teaching practices and beliefs (Darling-

Hammond & McLauglin, 1995). Through a

deliberation of ideals, meaningful partnerships

between classroom teachers and teacher edu-

cators can develop and sustain CRT practice

endorsed by the all the participants (academy

and community) of a teacher education pro-

gram.

While our 3 Rs model provides a frame-

work for bridging cultural responsive theory to

practice, it assumes that educators have a

strong content background in their discipline.

Findings suggested that practitioners lacking in

content knowledge were unable to successfully

implement culturally relevant pedagogy (Ville-

gas & Lucas, 2007), often relying on textbooks

or prepackaged materials. We recommend rig-

orous content area study for pre-service practi-

tioners to establish a necessary foundation for

implementing the dynamic pedagogy necessary

for successful culturally relevant teaching.

Simply taking more history/social science

courses is not enough. As Thornton (2001,

2005) suggests, content preparation should be

more reflective of the subject matter that

teachers teach in schools. In order for CRT to

be successful in a discipline-specific secondary

curriculum, practitioners need to be exposed to

course work and content relevant to the dis-

ciplines they will be charged to teach. This

conceptualization requires joint work between

teacher education programs and their col-

leagues in the arts and sciences.

In addition to systemic barriers to CRT, we

encountered practitioner resistance. These

findings led us to consider possible limitations

to our study. Specifically, we can infer from

reflections and lesson plans that a number of


Volume 5 Number 3

16

Winter 2010

the participants appear committed to utilizing

cultural responsive practices, but we do not

know if and how they will carry this ideology

over into their professional careers. From an

empirical perspective, a longitudinal study of

CRT prepared teachers would be beneficial to

determine the overall validity of the 3 R‟s

model. In further revising the 3 Rs model, we

suggest incorporating rationale-based episte-

mology to encourage purposeful CRT practices

(Shaver & Strong, 1982). Recent research

(Hawley, 2010) indicates that incorporating

rationale-based practice can impact pre-service

teachers‟ instructional strategies and profes-

sional disposition well into their career.

Conclusion

This study instituted a gate-keeping model

for bridging the gap between the theory and

practice of culturally responsive teaching for

social studies teacher candidates working with-

in urban, secondary schools. Successful CRT

participants recognized cultural disparities in

the curriculum, promoted student-centered

instruction, and reflected on their practice.

Conversely, this study exposed substantial

systemic and dispositional obstacles toward

developing a cultural responsive model in a

secondary environment. While the findings are

unique in the context of data collection, issues

of cultural responsiveness, diversity, and cul-

tural democratic thinking are important regard-

less of the demographic breakdown of a given

community (Banks, 2008; Ladson-Billings,

1995a). We argue that cultural responsiveness

should be a priority for all secondary teacher

education programs. Accordingly, our model

encourages practitioners to critique, engage,

and reflect to develop social studies practice

that celebrates our pluralistic society, whether

teaching in a suburban or an urban setting.

References

Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers‟

power in student teaching. Education. 128(2), 307-

323.

Anderson, L. (2009). Upper elementary grades bear the

brunt of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6),

413-418.

Banks, J.A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural

education. Nedham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks, J.A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citi-

zenship in a global age. Educational Researcher,

37(3), 129-139.

Beckman, D. (1957). Student teachers learn by doing

action research. Journal of Education for Teaching,

8(4), 369-375.

Bohn, A.P., & Sleeter, C.E. (2000). Multicultural edu-

cation and the standards movement: A report from

the field. Phi Kappa Delta, 82(2), 156-159.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis

in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,

3, 77-101.

Cornbleth, C. & Waugh, D. (1995). The great speckled

bird. New York: St. Martin‟s Press.

Crocco, M.S. (1998). Crafting a culturally responsive

pedagogy in an age of educational standards. Theo-

ry and Research in Social Education, 26(1), 123-

130.

Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing

of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accounta-

bility urban educators speak out. Urban Education,

42(6), 512-535.

Danker, A.C. (2002). The uncertain future of multicul-

tural social studies. Multicultural Review, 11(2),

118-120.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995).

Policies that support professional development in an

era of reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-

604.

Davis, O.L., Yeager, E.A., & Foster, S.J. (Eds.) (2001).

Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the

Social Studies. Lanham: MD: Rowman & Little-

field.

Denzin, N.K. (2009). The Research Act: A Theoretical

Introduction to Sociological Methods. Piscataway,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New

York: The MacMillan Company.

Epstein, T. (2001). Racial identity and young people‟s

perspectives on social education. Theory into Prac-

tice, 40(1), 42-47.

Fitchett, P.G., & Heafner, T.L. (2010). A national pers-

pective on the effects of high-stakes testing and

standardization on elementary social studies margi-

nalization. Theory and Research in Social Educa-


Volume 5 Number 3

17

Winter 2010

tion, 38(1), 298-316.

Foster, S.J., & Yeager, E.A. (1998). The role of empathy

in developing historical understanding. Internation-

al Journal of Social Education, 13(1), 1-7.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New

York, NY: Continuum.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory,

research, and practice. New York NY: Teachers

College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive

teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-

116.

Gay, G. & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural

critical consciousness and self-reflection in pre-

service teacher education. Theory into Practice,

42(3), 181-187.

Gerwin, D. (2004). Pre-service teachers report the im-

pact of high-stakes testing. The Social Studies,

95(4), 71-74.

Hawley, T.S. (2010). Purpose into practice: The prob-

lems and possiblities of rationale-based practice in

social studies. Theory and Research in Social Edu-

cation, 38(1), 131-161.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing

times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmo-

dern age. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity: An

Enquiry into the Origins of Cutlural Change. Cam-

bridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hess, D.E. (2004). Discussion in social studies: Is it

worth the trouble? Social Education, 72(5), 257-

263.

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy:

Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory

into Practice, 42(3), 195 - 202.

Jenks, C., Lee, J.O. & Kanpol, B. (2001). Approaches to

multicultural education in pre-service teacher edu-

cation: Philosophical frameworks and models for

teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 87-105.

Kenreich, T.W. (2010). Power, space, and geographic

difference: Mapping the world with a critical global

perspective. In B. Subedi (Ed.), Critical Global

Perspectives: Rethinking knowledge about global

societies (pp. 57-75). Charlotte, NC: Information

Age Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that‟s just good

teaching! The case for culturally relevant teaching.

Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of cul-

turally relevant pedagogy. American Educational

Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Liston, D.P., & Zeichner, K.M. (1990). Reflective

teaching and action research in pre-service teacher

education. Journal of Education for Teaching,

16(3), 235-254.

Marri, A.R. (2005) Building a framework for classroom-

based multicultural democratic education: Learning

from three skilled teachers. Teachers College

Record, 107(5), 1036-1059.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff D., & González. N.

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a

qualitative approach to connect homes and com-

munities. Theory into Practice 31(2), 132-140.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110

(2002).

Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. (1987). What do our 17-year

olds know? A report on the National Assessment of

History and Literature. New York: Harper Collins.

Rong, X.L. (1998). The new immigration: Challenges

facing social studies professionals. Social Educa-

tion, 62(7), 393-299.

Ross, E.W. (Ed.). (2006). The social studies curriculum:

Purposes, problems, and possibilities (Third ed.).

Albany, NY: SUNY.

Salinas, C. (2006). Educating late arrival high school

immigrant students: A call for a more democratic

curriculum. Multicultural Perspectives, 8(1), 20-27.

Shaver, J.P., & Strong, W. (1982). Facing value deci-

sions: Rationale-building for teachers. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.E. (1991). Race, class, gender,

and disability in current textbooks In M.W. Apple

& L.K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the

textbook (pp. 78-110). New York: Routledge.

Sleeter, C., & Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizing know-

ledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum Inquiry,

35(1), 27-45.

Tellez, K. (2008). What student teachers learn about

multicultural education from their cooperating

teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education. 24(1),

43-58.

Thornton, S. (2001). Educating the educators: Rethink-

ing the subject area and methods. Theory into Prac-

tice, 40(1), 72-78.

Thornton, S.J. (2005). Teaching social studies that mat-

ters. New York: Teachers College Press.

Trueba, H.T. (2004). The new Americans: Immigrants

and transnationals at work.Lanham, MD: Rowman

& Littlefield.

Ukpokodu, O. (2006). Essential characteristics of a cul-

turally conscientious classroom. Social Studies and

the Young Learner, 19(2), 4-7.

VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America’s past.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally

responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6),

28-33.

Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world.

Minneapolis , MN: University of Minnesota Press.


Volume 5 Number 3

18

Winter 2010

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other

unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the

past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Wood, P. (1988). Action reasearch: A field perspective.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 14(2), 135-150.

Web-based

Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers‟ beliefs and practice.

Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2)

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n2.html

National Council for the Social Studies (2002). Curriculum guidelines (for social studies teaching and learning)

http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/Curriculum_Guidelines_SocialStudies_Teaching_and_Learning.pdf/

About the Authors

Paul G. Fitchett, Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and K-

12 Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests include culturally responsive

teaching, social studies education, and educational policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Tehia V. Starker, Assistant Professor of Elementary Education in the Department of Reading and Elementary

Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests include culturally responsive teaching,

motivation, and self-efficacy, and pre-service teacher education.

Amy J. Good, Associate Professor of Elementary Education in the Department of Reading and Elementary Education

at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests include social studies and technology integration.

Citation for this Article Fitchett, P.G., Starker, T.V., & Good, A.J. (2010). Review, reflect, and react: A culturally responsive model for

pre-service secondary social studies teachers. Social Studies Research & Practice, 5(3), 1-20.

[email protected]


Volume 5 Number 3

19

Winter 2010

Appendix A

Student Demographic Questionnaire

DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

ALL ANSWERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.

Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire. All of your responses are strictly confidential and will

not be used outside of instructional purposes.

Student Demographic Questionnaire

1. In what social studies subject are you currently enrolled?

2. What grade are you currently in?

3. How old are you?

4. What is your gender:

A. Male

B. Female

5. Where is your family from?

6. How would you describe your race or ethnicity?

7. What is the highest level of education that your mother attained?

A. Went to High School

B. Graduated from High School

C. Attended some college

D. Graduated from a two year college

E. Graduated from a four year college

F. Attained a graduate degree

G. Attained a doctoral degree (PhD, law degree, medical degree)

H. Other

8. Briefly describe what you believe to be the purpose of this class.


Volume 5 Number 3

20

Winter 2010

Appendix B

Social Studies Structured Observation Guide

As you observe social studies being taught in the middle/secondary classroom, reflect on the follow-

ing aspects of the lesson. In your write-up of the observation please address each of these areas.

Lesson Introduction

How was the lesson introduced? How were connections made between students‟ prior knowledge and

the new ideas to be learned?

Purpose of Lesson

What was the purpose or intent of the lesson? Were students aware of what they were going to learn

and why it is relevant to them?

Instructional Delivery

What methods were used in conveying the new information?

Closure – How was closure carried out in this lesson?

Lesson Outcomes

Do you feel the goals and objectives of the lesson were met? Why or Why not? Did students expe-

rience success with the assignments given to them?

Classroom Management

What classroom management strategies/techniques were of interest to you as you observed this class?

Lesson Reactions

What were the strengths of this lesson? What aspects might you change or do differently if you were

responsible for teaching this material?

Personal Reflections

What will you take away from this experience that will impact your future social studies teaching?

Cultural Consciousness

Does this lesson reflect a culturally conscious classroom? What are students in the class doing? How

diverse are the instructional techniques? Does the teacher address the learning styles and motivations

of the various students?

review, reflect, and react 5/issue 3 - winter, 2010/research/5.3.2.pdf · social studies research...

Documents